Nice stat for the Stans haters.
- Thread starter MSUCostanza
- Start date
It's amazing how much time you spend hating our basketball coach.
And just for your personal enjoyment:
Babe McCarthy - 4 20 win seasons
Richard Williams - 3
Rick Stansbury - 9
And if 20-win seasons are "no longer a benchmark" why do they constantly mention it as a benchmark on TV?
And just for your personal enjoyment:
Babe McCarthy - 4 20 win seasons
Richard Williams - 3
Rick Stansbury - 9
And if 20-win seasons are "no longer a benchmark" why do they constantly mention it as a benchmark on TV?
All of our 20-win seasons have come since 1959.
So the tally is:
Stansbury: 9 out of 12
Everyone else: 7 out of 39
So the tally is:
Stansbury: 9 out of 12
Everyone else: 7 out of 39
....shows that in 1996, we played 26 regular season games. Last season, we played 31.
Again, it means nothing.
Again, it means nothing.
Or are you and Coach just smarter than everyone? Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
Point is, you and Coach SAY it means nothing because it hurts your side of the argument.
Point is, you and Coach SAY it means nothing because it hurts your side of the argument.
...to anybody with half a brain.
20 wins gets you an NIT bid, which equals nothing. Don't care what the media says. They have to try to pump up this worthless tournament.
Edited to add: This year, two at large teams have 20 wins or less. Both played in much better conferences and both were on the bubble at one time.
So come on.
20 wins gets you an NIT bid, which equals nothing. Don't care what the media says. They have to try to pump up this worthless tournament.
Edited to add: This year, two at large teams have 20 wins or less. Both played in much better conferences and both were on the bubble at one time.
So come on.
pre-season tournaments and more games. 20 wins used to get you in the ncaa tourney, it does not any more. You're making a terrible point here and making C34 look smart. Don't do that.
Maybe it doesn't mean what it did 20 years ago, but I'd much rather be winning 20 games every season than the alternative, like these guys:
LSU
Auburn
Arkansas
Georgia
Alabama
South Carolina
BC
Virginia
Providence
St. John's
UConn
Michigan
Indiana
Penn State
Iowa
Colorado
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Arizona
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington State
Those are all pretty big names. And in many cases with more tradition and history than we have, and yet they were not able to win 20 games this season, and many of those haven't won 20 in quite a few years. My only point is that we actually have sustained success, whereas a lot of programs are going up and down. Maybe we haven't had the level of success that some want, but I'd rather be in the hunt every year than struggling like a lot of these teams are doing.
LSU
Auburn
Arkansas
Georgia
Alabama
South Carolina
BC
Virginia
Providence
St. John's
UConn
Michigan
Indiana
Penn State
Iowa
Colorado
Texas Tech
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Arizona
USC
UCLA
Stanford
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington State
Those are all pretty big names. And in many cases with more tradition and history than we have, and yet they were not able to win 20 games this season, and many of those haven't won 20 in quite a few years. My only point is that we actually have sustained success, whereas a lot of programs are going up and down. Maybe we haven't had the level of success that some want, but I'd rather be in the hunt every year than struggling like a lot of these teams are doing.
UConn was one of 20 teams I listed that didn't win 20 games THIS YEAR. I said absolutely nothing about the last 12 years combined. And there are some big names on that list that haven't won 20 games in quite a few years.
Arizona went 20-something years in a row making the tournament. The last few years, they've been up and down, in and out. Way down for the type program they are accustomed to.
...
If you are trying to make the point that winning 20 games in any isolated season is better than not winning 20 games, then yes we can all agree on that. And also the sun is out when it's daytime.
Your foolish argument is not based on what we have done this year, it's the great and all important statistic of winning 20 games consistently over the course of a career. Yeah, I'd rather have our season than the list you posted. I'd rather have our season than North Carolina, too. Why did you leave them out?
If you are trying to make the point that winning 20 games in any isolated season is better than not winning 20 games, then yes we can all agree on that. And also the sun is out when it's daytime.
UConn has always played a top 10 schedule, and won way more than 20 games playing it in years past. How come they can't now? Why? Why have they fallen off the last couple of years? Just because Calhoun has had health problems?
I understand arguing with most of C34's points, but everything you have said in this thread is just stupid.